Not quoting Brett's headline, just simplifying it for a title, but On3 reported that all 70 G6 head coaches were contacted, 61 responded, and of those 61, 40 said they wanted their own playoff so long as the G6 retains its automatic CFP berth.

I work in sports radio, so this was a discussion topic on our show yesterday...a format that could be a lot of fun if this were to go through...

*I'm not advocating for our own playoff
*I'm not suggesting the G6 ONLY get 1 CFP berth...if two teams are in the top 24 that should obviously garner them both consideration as well.

But...Using the current standings in the 6 conferences (as of 10/30)...all 6 champions enter a G6 playoff with the #1 overall seed (currently Boise State) participating in this playoff if they fail to advance in the CFP.

Thoughts?

Glad the institutions (Chancellors, Presidents, boards, ADs) would be the ones making the call. Not coaches that last 2-4 seasons at a school.

I don't care what the coaches think. They don't drive these decisions and their jobs are a revolving door for more crumbs from the power tables.

Two very big obstacles in the way:

1. We won't make as much money as we would from the CFP. Even the pittance we get would be less than the TV payout for the G6 playoffs.

2. The AAC and Pac will not support this, and if they don't no one else in the G6 will.

9/10ths of G6 coaches want to be P4 coaches, I’m surprised it isn’t higher.

(10-30-2026 11:44 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  9/10ths of G6 coaches want to be P4 coaches, I’m surprised it isn’t higher.

Why are they asking coaches to begin with? They wouldn't have the school's best interest for stuff like this

Because the answer fits the narrative they are selling.

Just to clarify something here. The original question included the caveat that the Top G6 school retained its place in the CFP.

Essentially the question was, Would you support a separate G6 playoff for the schools that don't make the College Football Playoff?

I for one love an idea like this. It would likely be more meaningful than an average bowl game and would likely get more attention. I guess whether that #1 team would want to participate here after possibly losing in the CFP playoff but it's not a bad idea.

I would rank the teams based on the BCS formula and label it (if you can legally) the BCS National Championship. Don't use the term G6 at all even if we know that is what it is.

I would also like to see bowl games using a BCS formula and have teams play based on best possible ranking while avoid regular season rematches and intra-conference matches if they can.

what's really amusing is youse think it's still P4...

it's inevitable...

there's an old sayin' in the market, "ya can't fight the tape!"

it's all about the green...

There is currently a P4 championship called the CFP. It only follows that logically there would be a G6 championship as well. Stop buying into the illusion of inclusion. A G6 championship is the logical conclusion to the current and increasing divide between the P4 and G6. Some will have to be dragged kicking and screaming in finally admitting this.

I think we should just have a college football NIT. And have a rule that there's a maximum football NIL to be eligible.1

(10-30-2026 02:40 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I think we should just have a college football NIT. And have a rule that there's a maximum football NIL to be eligible.1

Right...an NIL limit that will increase every year. Essentially buying your way into the playoffs instead of what your record is. Yeah, that makes sense.

(10-30-2026 03:22 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 02:40 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I think we should just have a college football NIT. And have a rule that there's a maximum football NIL to be eligible.1

Right...an NIL limit that will increase every year. Essentially buying your way into the playoffs instead of what your record is. Yeah, that makes sense.

I said maximum.

I find this hard to take seriously.

(10-30-2026 02:30 PM)islandTROYtrojan Wrote:  There is currently a P4 championship called the CFP. It only follows that logically there would be a G6 championship as well. Stop buying into the illusion of inclusion. A G6 championship is the logical conclusion to the current and increasing divide between the P4 and G6. Some will have to be dragged kicking and screaming in finally admitting this.

when you understand how drive to 1 or 0, it is that simple...

there's also a reason "fanatic" was shortened to "fan" ...

I see issues...

In any given year, most coaches of the top G6 teams will have been hired by new schools and will not coach in the sham playoff. In those cases, you can also expect most starters to opt out. I imagine 2023 as an example. JMU probably would have been the 1 or 2 seed in the sham playoff, but we would have been playing with an interim coach, no OC, no DC, no Cignetti or his staff, and 40+ players opted out. That makes the seeding arbitrary, because the top teams are fundamentally different from the regular season versions of themselves.

Or take 2024 Marshall. They would have won the SBC and received a sham playoff bid, only to later opt out when things collapsed and they were no longer able to even field a team in the postseason. What happens then? Do we add the next team out and re-seed the whole sham playoff after teams have started planning and fans have booked travel? And if you think it was hard to get players to stick around for a bowl game, just imagine how hard it will be to keep them around for 3-4 additional games.

That's two years in a row that a G6 playoff would have been an unmitigated disaster for the SBC. The whole pitch is basically "watch shells of this year's 2nd to Xth best G6 teams play some extremely ugly football against each other". It will make the G6 look absolutely terrible... and that's the real point.

(10-30-2026 06:23 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  I see issues...

In any given year, most coaches of the top G6 teams will have been hired by new schools and will not coach in the sham playoff. In those cases, you can also expect most starters to opt out. I imagine 2023 as an example. JMU probably would have been the 1 or 2 seed in the sham playoff, but we would have been playing with an interim coach, no OC, no DC, no Cignetti or his staff, and 40+ players opted out. That makes the seeding arbitrary, because the top teams are fundamentally different from the regular season versions of themselves.

Or take 2024 Marshall. They would have won the SBC and received a sham playoff bid, only to later opt out when things collapsed and they were no longer able to even field a team in the postseason. What happens then? Do we add the next team out and re-seed the whole sham playoff after teams have started planning and fans have booked travel? And if you think it was hard to get players to stick around for a bowl game, just imagine how hard it will be to keep them around for 3-4 additional games.

That's two years in a row that a G6 playoff would have been an unmitigated disaster for the SBC. The whole pitch is basically "watch shells of this year's 2nd to Xth best G6 teams play some extremely ugly football against each other". It will make the G6 look absolutely terrible... and that's the real point.

Easy, amend contracts (rev share and coaching) to require players play for full contract.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(10-30-2026 07:09 PM)hannibalDawg Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 06:23 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  I see issues...

In any given year, most coaches of the top G6 teams will have been hired by new schools and will not coach in the sham playoff. In those cases, you can also expect most starters to opt out. I imagine 2023 as an example. JMU probably would have been the 1 or 2 seed in the sham playoff, but we would have been playing with an interim coach, no OC, no DC, no Cignetti or his staff, and 40+ players opted out. That makes the seeding arbitrary, because the top teams are fundamentally different from the regular season versions of themselves.

Or take 2024 Marshall. They would have won the SBC and received a sham playoff bid, only to later opt out when things collapsed and they were no longer able to even field a team in the postseason. What happens then? Do we add the next team out and re-seed the whole sham playoff after teams have started planning and fans have booked travel? And if you think it was hard to get players to stick around for a bowl game, just imagine how hard it will be to keep them around for 3-4 additional games.

That's two years in a row that a G6 playoff would have been an unmitigated disaster for the SBC. The whole pitch is basically "watch shells of this year's 2nd to Xth best G6 teams play some extremely ugly football against each other". It will make the G6 look absolutely terrible... and that's the real point.

Easy, amend contracts (rev share and coaching) to require players play for full contract.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Hard to be a first mover there, because it would make you an outlier and require additional compensation. Schools would need to coordinate that move, which could potentially run into antitrust issues.